>science is about the "how" and philosophy about the "why"
Someone on /sci/ said this. Is it true?
When was the last time philosophy objectively answered a "why"?
>>900122
the fact that you think that ''how'' is a relevant word for your life is already far dubious. so tell us your justification to take this world seriously, to the point of listening to people who choose to speculate about it.
>>900122
But science literally uses hypothesis which explains the cause of a phenomenon which literally answers the question 'why'.
>philosophy
>giving answers
>>900136
>which explains
Do not hesitate what to explain means and why you think that you definition of explanation is relevant.
What is explained, when and by whom ?
>>900143
He literally said what, when and by whom. Don't try to sound smarter than you are
>>900122
>objectively
STEMlord #298829720 who thinks the truthfulness standards of science should apply to philosophy.
>>900143
>Do not hesitate what to explain means and why you think that you definition of explanation is relevant.
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
and history is about "when"
>>900161
And geography is about "where".
And mathematics is "how many".
>science is about the "how" and philosophy about the "wouldn't it be cool if..."
Fixed.
I see it more as philosophy provides the questions, and science attempts to provide the answers. Without philosophy and doubt there would be nothing for science to investigate.
In 2016, the notion of a **theorem** is taken seriously in a few languages for deduction, what is called **deductive formal languages**.
Given a language formalizing what people think is the **deductive reasoning**, let us say the **classical logic**, what is a **(mathematical) theorem** ?
-The notion of **theorem** appears only after you choose a **theory** that you decide to express in your logic (for deduction).
-This theory is explicitly a bunch of **statements** which are called **axioms**.
the requirement to be a theory is that **some humans** must be able to tell whether a given statement is an axiom or not. (in 2016, nobody knows what **some humans** means)
-what is a theorem inside a theory expressed in some logic of deduction ?
BY DEFINITION of a theorem, given a theory expressed in some deductive logic, a **mathematical theorem** is the last statement of a **finite sequence of statements**, where EACH statement is **valid**, which means that each statement of this sequence is either:
-an axiom of the theory OR
-a statement got from the application, on a statement in the sequence, of the inference rules of the logic that **the human** has chosen
THERE IS NO OTHER DEFINITION OF A THEOREM IN 2016.
>>900193
Now that everybody had their first look at the deductive formal logic, let's look at the rationalist's typical day:
-get up in the morning
-to deflect your fear of your suicide, before the vacuity of your existence and the failure of your choices to make you happy in finding a sustained relevancy of your puny life, choose to cling to some fantasy that doing physics is great because it connects you to the **secrets of the universe**
-look at what other people are doing
-see that they talk about a formalized result, that they have got through **inductive reasoning**
-first step is inductive; with what you see, what you feel, you fix a system, then, by association and differentiation, you discriminate between systems which behave like your system, and systems which do not behave like you system [the definition of a system is bogus of course, since the system is literally putting, at least, spatial and temporal boundaries to get an ''event'' (people love to take seriously space and time, they cannot think outside space and time)+ giving this event other qualities that the system is supposed to bear]
induction serves, at the very least, to tie things/events/phenomena together through the concept of identity (or its opposite, of difference). instead of induction here, you can talk about abstractions, but they are the same things : to group things together and/or to differentiate between things.
>>900198
-you continue your induction/abstraction (and frankly, you cannot even do anything else in your life; it is too difficult to stop having faith in your inductions), in saying that, since two systems behave the same so far, they must have a few qualities which are the same
-ask yourself ''how can I derive these equations, these formal results in a valid way ?'' inside some mathematical theory
-choose to work with the inference rules and the syntactical rules of what is called the **classical logic of deduction** (because you know no other logic, since you refuse to learn formal logic, even though you love to claim to be rational and logical)
-then you apply deductive reasoning borrowed from math/logic: you quantify your qualities [which ties things together, which create the system] above and get new formulas from deductive rules (deductive rules are got by induction/abstraction just as above, why do you have faith in the modus ponens ? because you want it to leads you to see the world through logical causation. Rationalists like Quine who think of themselves as empiricists say that we are wired to see the world through classical logic (kant says that we are wired to see the world through space and time...)
>>900199
-formalize this event that you desire to explain (without even knowing why you want to explain it) into some formal statement, first in a natural language
-get a FINITE stream of **deductions**, where the last statement of this stream is your choice of formalization of this event
-invent some deductive logic, which means **invent** some **inference rules** (and syntactical rules), for which the deductions in the aforementioned stream are **valid**
-formalize further your new deductive logic in formal deductive logic
-because you choose the classical logic, you choose to take seriously the principle of explosion and contradiction, check whether these new axioms render inconsistent the theory of differential geometry in classical logic
--if the inconsistency appears, you failed and you pray very hard to find a new explanation of the events that you have chosen to explain [or publish your work as a ''negative result'']
--if there is no inconsistency, you have created a new theory, that you can call ''bare differential geometry in classical logic+ME'', but since it is only an extension of a famous theory, stick to the claim that you invented few new axioms which are consistent with the usual model of differential geometry in classical logic
-your next task is to find further deductions to turn the few new axioms [typically, the existence of the lagrangian of your theory, like you posit the existence of a set in ''set theory''] into theorems; for this, you will likely need a new mathematical theory, possible even a new formalization of the deductive reasoning.
>>900189
So sci is sub and phil is dom.
Makes sense.
Thread over.
>>900201
-publish your results
-pray that somebody will look at them
-pray that people who will look at them will not laugh at you, to the point that you pray that people who pay you will continue to pay you
--if a few people adhere to your ''explanation'', enjoy being praised for your ''explanation of the event''
--if people do not adhere to your deductions, claim that this lack of acknowledgement does not matter since, after all, what you did is valid logically and therefore is not a waste of time (and not a waste of money for whoever chooses to pay you)
-get other theorems from your deductive framework
-try to get some strangers to ''validate inductively your mathematical theorems'' through the empty concept, a total oxymoron, of **empirical proof**
-then you go back to induction in telling the experimental physicist (a complete stranger) to check statistically your deductive predictions
-then you get the result and you ask people what degree of statistical significance they like ? (the famous p-value or the n-sigma (n is number like 3 or 5 today))
-if the null hypothesis is rejected (p-value of 0.05 or any other socially accepted level to reject officially the null hypothesis) then your predictions are officially accepted (by whom ? nobody really knows)
-and then you can claim that your deductive formulas ''describe the world'' (if you are a good rationalist-scientist).
>>900205
a few people choose to have faith in the **scientific realism**, where still in 2016, they choose to conflate the notion of **truth value** with the notion of **truth**, they choose to conflate the various formalizations of events with the events themselves, which means that they choose to see as identical the **stream of events** and the various statements inside each of their favourite various deductive models. So for instance, with electromagnetism, they say that there is indeed some electric field floating in real space, interacting with electronic fields, or electrons (it depends on what model you choose to explain the events), in what people call antennas and so on.
Why do people crave the deductive reasonings and its various formalizations ?
Because deductions are seen as ''falling form the sky''.
deductions are seen as necessary. deductions are seen as ''impossible to refute, because they are not personal, but are external therefore leading you to objectivity, universality, truths, reality''
Why do people cling to objectivity, universality, truths, reality ?
Because they do not know how to live without these fantasies which bring them comfort and a sense of control.
people dislike and pains and the typical reaction when your life sucks is to ask ''why me? why my life sucks and others seem to manage well?''. In one word, you see the existence as a bunch of necessary events and a bunch of contingent events, then you choose to escape these contingencies, obtain pleasing necessities, leave displeasing necessities.
What the fantasy of control brings you ? it brings you faith, by induction, that you life will stop sucking if you think for a bit.
>>900207
>and a sense of control.
Its not sense of control that people who obsess over deduction crave, but certainty.
>>900207
Thanks for all that, Gene Ray the Wisest Human.
>>900122
>Why is OP such a massive faggot?
>Because OP likes to swallow massive cocks
Sounds like factual science to me.
>>900207
Do you seriously believe anyone is going to read something this long on 4chan
>>900134
>so tell us your justification to take this world seriously
It's the only world we have evidence of. Fuck off, solipsist scum.
>>900122
No, its a retarded platitude.
Philosophy is a science about concepts, how to handle them, how to differentiate them properly, how to talk about them meaningfully, and also a database of concepts in that context.
Science in general is anything that can give reliable certainities about anything.
Its not about any specific question other than "what is most likely true?"
>>900122
Nah.
Science is about what is true based on our evidence today.
Philosophy is about mastery of the universe to develop taste.
